1948 (3) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Dismissed claim for tax relief due to failure to meet statutory requirements

Shree Shakti Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax

The court dismissed the assessee's claim for relief under Sections 16(2) and 18(5) of the Income-tax Act due to their status as a purchaser of shares ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Sections 16(2) and 18(5) of the Income-tax Act in relation to the entitlement of the assessee to claim relief.2. Requirement of producing certificates under Section 20 of the Act for processing claims under Sections 16(2) and 18(5).Analysis:Interpretation of Sections 16(2) and 18(5):The case involved an assessee, a company, receiving dividends on shares purchased but not transferred in their name. The assessee claimed relief under Sections 16(2) and 18(5) of the Income-tax Act. The court deliberated on the fundamental right of the assessee to claim relief under these sections. Section 16(2) allows grossing up of net dividends for tax purposes, while Section 18(5) permits deduction of tax paid by the company on the gross amount. The court emphasized that dividends can only be paid by a company to its registered shareholder. It clarified that a shareholder must be the legal owner of shares and listed in the company's register. As the assessee did not get the shares transferred in their name, they were not considered shareholders entitled to the benefits under Sections 16(2) and 18(5). The court held that only a registered shareholder can avail of the procedures outlined in these sections, and a mere purchaser of shares without registration cannot claim such benefits.Requirement of Certificates under Section 20:The court also addressed the necessity of producing certificates under Section 20 of the Act for processing claims under Sections 16(2) and 18(5). Section 20 mandates companies to issue certificates confirming the payment of income tax on distributed dividends. The court noted that the assessee's failure to produce these certificates hindered their claim for relief under the aforementioned sections. The court opined that the absence of the certificate from the company precluded the assessee from proving that the tax was paid on the dividends. It emphasized that the shareholder, who received the dividend, would typically possess the certificate under Section 20. As the assessee was not a registered shareholder and did not receive the dividend directly from the company, they were unable to fulfill the requirements for processing the claim under Sections 16(2) and 18(5. Thus, the court concluded that the assessee's claim could not be entertained in the absence of the required certificates.In conclusion, the court dismissed the assessee's claim for relief under Sections 16(2) and 18(5) due to their status as a purchaser of shares without registration as a shareholder. Additionally, the failure to produce certificates under Section 20 further weakened the assessee's position in claiming the benefits provided by the Income-tax Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements and legal prerequisites for availing tax-related reliefs and deductions.